"Once you realize your government’s sole purpose is to reserve murder of you and your family as its sacred task depending on your lack of fealty and obedience, everything sort of falls into place on why governments throughout the ages have been so murderous at home and abroad". William Buppert

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Just when one begins to despair that any semblance of sanity can be salvaged from the wreckage of western sociopolitical culture there emerges a voice which exhorts a return to reason and logic. Oddly enough, such a voice can be heard emitting from one of the unlikeliest of sources; the European Parliament. The following video appears to have gone viral, as well it should. The indictment delivered by Daniel Hannan against the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is equally applicable concerning the two most recent occupants of the White House.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Occasionally one runs across a jewel of wisdom so precious that it seems to have been sequestered from exposure to mere mortals. The late Milton Friedman is a source of several such examples. My favorite pearl produced by the master is the following clip from an interview of him by Phil Donahue in 1979.

If there is truth to the ancient Chinese cliche that a picture is worth a thousand words then the series of frames presented below with the accompanying dialog is definitely worth several million.

It is so devastatingly effective in demolishing one of the most sacred shibboleths of modern leftism that it needs to be resurrected and considered in these times of the ascendancy of the Marxist messiah.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

The following is a reposting from the web site of the College Republicans of Arizona State University of 03 February 2009. Your humble scribbler is categorizing it under "gun control" for reasons which should become obvious to his readers. The date of the incident, 19 April 1775 is important to ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ as it is not only the anniversary of his birth but the opening shots of the American Revolution which was triggered by an effort of King George III to disarm his subjects in the American colonies.

In the early morning hours of April 19th, 1775, word spread like wildfire that the British Army had departed Boston, and was preparing to march on the city of Concord. A small contingent of average, run of the mill Americans chose to take a stand in Lexington, Massachusetts. With one shot, the course of American history was forever altered. That single ball of lead sparked a revolution, creating our great country, which has been a beacon of freedom and prosperity for over two centuries. However, why was this shot fired? The answer is simple: gun control.

The reason why the British military was ordered to Concord was to capture and destroy weapons, which they feared would be used to launch a revolution. Well, they were right. If it weren’t for the fact that the colonists owned and were proficient in the use of firearms, it is doubtful that the revolution would have taken place at all.

Our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, recognized this fact. With the adoption of our constitution, they knew that the concept of a federal government was new and untested. It was unknown whether our republic would blossom into the world’s first truly free society, or if we would end up with yet another oppressive government. For this reason, the bill of rights was amended into the constitution, to further clarify what the federal government can and cannot do.

In terms of personal liberty, it is widely recognized that the first amendment is by far the most important. It firmly establishes that Americans have the right to say what they think, print what they want, and practice whatever religion they wish to without fear of persecution. These are fundamental freedoms which every American cherishes. However, what Americans today seem to have forgotten, is that this document is just that, a document. It is an old piece of parchment. Words printed on a piece of paper are worthless if they are not heeded by the federal government. [or an informed citizenry] And, because the founding fathers recognized this fact, they chose to preserve the power of the average American through the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms.

Our government was purposely created with a system of checks and balances. Congress has two separate houses, so that both must agree for a bill to be sent to the President. The President has the power to sign or veto bills, and the Supreme Court has the power to review laws to determine constitutionality. However, in the event that our elaborate system of checks and balances were to fail, we have one last check on the power of the government; private ownership of firearms. It was through the force of arms that we became free in the first place, and our founding fathers chose specifically to recognize this freedom, in the event that tyranny and oppression took hold in our government.

Now, I don’t mean to sound like I advocate the use of the second amendment in this way; that couldn’t be father from the truth. However, when we look at countries such as the Soviet Union, China and Nazi Germany, we can clearly see how gun control has historically been used to subdue populations before genocide takes place.

After all, when the Nazis first took power of Germany in 1933, the Jewish population was free. Slowly over time, Jewish freedoms were eroded away. It started with hostile propaganda, which was designed to turn the people of Germany against the Jews. After blaming the Jews for the current economic crisis, the Nazis passed laws requiring them to wear armbands to segregate them. After continued discrimination by both the government and the people of Germany, they were finally relocated to ghettos and from there sent to concentration camps such as Auschwitz and Dachau.

In this story though is one very significant act of resistance. In an event known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the importance of the second amendment becomes clear. When the Nazi Regime wanted to transport the last of the Warsaw Ghetto Jews to Treblinka, a large number of Jews rose up in a rebellion which lasted from January 18th to May 16th, 1943.

During this rebellion, the Jews used any weapon they could find or improvise to halt the German advance. Despite the fact that they faced the might of the German Army with pistols and molotov cocktails, they were able to successfully hold out for five months. This even was the only large scale uprising launched by the Jews during the holocaust.

Now, imagine that Germany had the same gun culture as the Unite States during World War II. If every German Jew possessed a shotgun or handgun, I would imagine that the holocaust may have turned out different. Even if the SS had been successful in rounding up people for ethnic cleansing, the process for doing so would have been extremely costly.

The Second Amendment has also had a significant role in how foreign powers view us. When Admiral Yamamoto, the man who planned the Pearl Harbor attacks was asked about the feasibility of an invasion of the continental US, his reply was. “You cannot invade the mainland of the United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Never before in history has a country been designed with such a failsafe system of government. Our constitution’s checks and balances, along with the Second Amendment, truly is an ingenious way of running a country.

Unfortunately, we have seen our rights erode slowly over time. At one point in our history, there was no gun control in any form whatsoever. In fact, the first significant form of national gun control was the National Firearms Act of 1934. This required national registration of machine guns and short barreled rifles and shotguns. It also imposed a $200 transfer tax when buying such a weapon.

Next came the Gun Control Act of 1968. Within this act, the government required the licensing of gun dealers, and made it illegal to send firearms in the mail unless it was from gun-dealer to gun-dealer. It also included a “sporting-purpose” clause to heavily regulate the importation of military-style firearms.

After that came the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which changed the law to allow people to mail order ammunition without a gun dealer. Unfortunately, they added an amendment at the last minute to make the manufacture of machine guns illegal.

Up until this point, no one really cared. However, with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, gun owners finally opened their eyes to the impending erosion of the Second Amendment. In this act, many firearms in common use were banned by name. Most were banned based upon their “scary looks.” Luckily this act of gun control had an expiration date and was allowed to expire. Now that Barack Obama is preparing to take his place as our President, the media has already started its game of writing emotional articles about how AK47s are “flooding the streets.”

The next time liberal politicians propose to ban military-style firearms under the guise of increasing security, I would like to bear in mind a quote from Benjamin Franklin, “Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Is an idle promise of temporary security really worth the erosion of our second amendment rights? I guess that is up to the voters and the Supreme Court. However, I am willing to take that risk in order to preserve my right to defend myself and the freedoms I cherish.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ must disagree with the second to last sentence of the quote. It is up to individual free citizens to determine the preservation of the natural right of self defense.

Recently we have noted a surfeit of discussions of various scenarios involving self defense and "protection". It has also been observed that one of the consequences of the recent national plebiscite has been a boost in the sale of firearms and related paraphernalia whilst private enterprise along with the remainder of our liberties seem to be in free fall. To what extent however, is the private acquisition of the means of self defense merely an exercise in "talking the talk" rather than "walking the walk"?

This writer is of the opinion that the most important factor when considering taking individual responsibility for defending ones self, family and property is mindset; and for the last two generations government education has systematically attempted to quash the traditional view that self defense is a natural right. All the defensive armament available is useless unless one is prepared to utilize it in extremis.

The conventional wisdom permeating our society that it is the responsibility of the state through one of its agencies to protect us from violent criminal threats to life and limb could not be further from the reality. The truth of the concept can be read here and here that the government has no obligation to defend an individual from the threat to life or limb. Also to be considered is the fact that the greatest threat to liberty since 1865 has been the Federal Government itself. In spite of these facts :

...[T]he state and its myriad civilian supporters persist in the belief the individual in society should be disarmed, stating the police are there, should anyone need protection.

Today’s economic problems have revealed the true purpose of most law enforcement personnel in our country: revenue collection . Apprehending killers, rapists and robbers does not contribute to the coffers of law enforcement and their governing bodies; they are, in fact, costly to the agency involved. Unconstitutional law enforcement checkpoints, where a great majority of DUI citations, license, registration, and insurance violations are issued, are vital to the state in the collection of revenue. In today’s economic times, many departments have detailed officers from personal crime assignments to activities that are revenue producing. This takes the law enforcement emphasis away from protecting citizens. To the police, manning checkpoints or speed traps is much more important than answering a prowler call or a call concerning a restraining order’s enforcement.

During times of severe economic collapse and the concomitant likelihood of brigandage, it is logical to conceive of relying on individual self defense. On the other hand, what is the appropriate response to the scenario where agents of governmental authority are sent out to collect the means of self defense from the citizenry during times of emergency and martial law as was the case in New Orleans during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina? If, dear reader, you are prepared to dismiss such a possibility by citing articles and clauses in the Constitution and provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 I suggest that you consider returning to the real world of the 21st century.

The issue of whether U.S. troops would be prepared to round-up, disarm and if necessary shoot Americans who disobeyed orders during a state of martial law is a question that military chiefs have been attempting to answer for at least 15 years.

There is, however at least one ray of hope, and you will not be made aware of it in the traditional media. If any of you dear readers are members of the military or law enforcement, I urge you to become acquainted with the web site of the Oath Keepers who present a list of "orders" which they will not obey.

Officers in the service of the United States are bound by the following oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The usual governmental dodge of course will be applied to your demurrer regarding the demand (following a knock on your door) ordering the surrender of your weapons; you will be declared a "terrorist" and dealt with accordingly.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

It is unclear how long YouTube will allow this video to be viewed before removing it using the usual "violation of terms of use" cop out . In any event, here it is.

The alliance between socialist/leftist political parties and the multiculturalists continues to coalesce. It remains to be seen if the the membership surge in conservative parties such as the Swedish Democrats, the BNP (British National Party) and the PVV (Freedom Party) in the Netherlands is too little and too late to counter the descent of those countries into a multicultural hell.

As is the case here in the US, the mainstream media with the tacit cooperation of the ruling politicians pursue a policy of vilification and marginalization of any grassroots movement to retain traditional cultural identity. The anti dhimmi groups are generally portrayed as "fascist" or "far right wing".

With the ubiquitous alternative media presence it becomes increasingly difficult for the MSM to maintain their monopoly on the dissemination of information hence the agitation for enacting the "Fairness Doctrine" and governmental control of the internet.

Sunday, March 08, 2009

One of the concepts learned in most introductory courses on government (more recently known as political science) is the theory of the "social contract" . The most famous of the theoreticians positing this idea are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The common thread contained in the writings of these thinkers is the implication that people give up some of their natural rights to a collective or other authority such as a prince or chieftain in order to achieve social order.

In order for a contract to continue in force the parties to it must abide by its terms. Otherwise there is a breach of said contract. For example, if a citizen fails to abide by the laws of his government it is generally conceded to be just for that government to visit retribution on him. The next question one could ask is; what is to be done in the instance where the central authority to which the citizens have surrendered their rights fails or is unable to fulfill its obligations? In answering this question, considerable blood has been spilled over the course of human history. In the case of the United States the issue was joined in 1776 and provisionally resolved by the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Unhappily, today we are witnessing the disintegration of western culture as it has heretofore been defined. This view is reinforced by events recorded in the video embedded below recently transpiring in the Swedish city of Malmö where the "Dialog Police" are having their go at a resolution. These issues will be temporarily resolved as history unfolds. Stay tuned.

For now one would be well advised to keep his/her powder dry.

Update: The YouTube video has been taken down. The Swedish edition is HERE.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Berlin. Inorder to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyalcustomers - most of whom are unemployed alcoholics - todrink now but pay later. She keeps track of the drinksconsumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around and as a result increasingnumbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar.

A young and dynamic customer service consultantat the local bank recognizes these customer debts asvaluable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowinglimit.

He sees no reason for undue concern since hehas the debts of the alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters,expert bankers transform these customer assets intoDRINKBONDS, ALKBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities arethen traded on markets worldwide. No one really understandswhat these abbreviations mean and how the securities areguaranteed. Nevertheless, as their prices continuouslyclimb, the securities become top-selling items.

One day, although the prices are stillclimbing, a risk manager of the bank, (subsequently ofcourse fired due his negativity), decides that slowly thetime has come to demand payment of the debts incurred by thedrinkers at Heidi's bar.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar, havinggranted her generous payment due dates and having investedin the securities are faced with a new situation. Her winesupplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken overby a competitor.

The bank is saved by the Government followingdramatic round-the-clock consultations by leaders from thegoverning political parties.

The funds required for this purpose areobtained by a tax levied on the non-drinkers.

Comment policy

I retain the option of deleting comments, the only substance of which, is invective or unsupported opinion. Such comments however may be retained to demonstrate the intellectual vacuity of the commenter. I am sorry if you feel compelled to offer opinions without substance. If you offer no reason for your dismissal of my or other commenters' thoughts I have no idea what your problem with them might be. I have found that this tactic is a particular specialty of the Marxist/Leninists liberal left but it is also employed by the bigoted extreme right.